jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (80 posts)

The Scientific Evidence (Revelation Within Cell) For "Intelligence"

  1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
    sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago

    "The genetic code is a set of instructions and information"

    "The set of instructions and information is intelligence"

    "therefore genetic code is intelligence"



    "All living things are developed by the genetic code"

    "The genetic code is intelligence"

    "Therefore all living things are developed by intelligence"

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The link below will show you a number of fallacies, which you use extensively in your posts, but they are not valid as arguments. Please make yourself familiar with them so you're not wasting your time posting fallacies.

      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells.

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Rad Man,'' information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated '' , what is this ? ,this is Intelligence as it involves ''information'' and'' translation ''.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's not intelligence just because you say it is.

          Even a rock follows the rules of being a rock. Intelligence is required to break rules, not make rules.

    3. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The code is not intelligence. The code is input. The product of the code is  output resulting from the coding of specific  genetic materials and, in some specific cases, that product or output has specific capabilities that we label as "intelligence".

    4. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The logic in your argument is valid. Whether the premises are true or not is another matter. I would question whether a set of instructions and information indicates intelligence. There are complex emergent systems in the natural world that give the appearance of intelligence, but are the result of components following simple rules. Those "rules" are the result of chemical reactions. An ant colony, or a beehive for example behaving "intelligently" to ward of attackers, or repair the hill/hive, or "communicate" the location of food sources to others etc. All achieved as a result of chemical reactions in the individuals that make up the colony/hive. So I don't think your second premise is true. Therefore although the argument is logically valid (if all the premises were true, the conclusion would necessarily be true), I suspect it is unsound (logically valid, but not all the premises are true).

      1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
        sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don W, Thanks for comments,'' intelligence'' involves '' understanding''  and knowledge involves '' information '',therefore,intelligence may be substituted by knowledge.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sure if understanding and information were the same thing...

  2. cjhunsinger profile image68
    cjhunsingerposted 3 years ago

    A horse is an animal. A horse has four legs, a head and a tail. Therefore all animals with a head , four legs and a tail are horses. Kind of silly huh?

  3. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    "The set of instructions and information is intelligence"

    Intelligence is the ability to learn

    A set of instructions and/or information cannot learn

    Therefore a set of instructions is not intelligence.



    The genetic code is a chemical that can react in only one way, just as every other chemical.

    A set of instructions and information may or may not be followed, as desired by the intelligence seeing it.

    Therefore the genetic code is not a set of instructions and information.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      wilderness, Genetic code is not a simple chemical it involves the accurate translation,information and future instructions and these all are symbol of an Intelligence.Certainly, it is divine writings in the cell, therefore,it is ample proof of an Intelligence.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        To bad it was not divinely written in any holy book. A description of the genetic code, evolution, the age, size and the rules of the universe would have been nice.

  4. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    "A computer program is a set of instructions and information"

    "The set of instructions and information is intelligence"

    "therefore a computer program is intelligence"



    "All computers operate by computer program"

    "The computer program is intelligence"

    "Therefore all computers are intelligent"


    Was the universe created by a computer?  Probably - computers are known to exist (I'm typing on one) but gods are not - so a computer created the universe.  Unless you can prove otherwise, we shall all recognize that proven fact.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      wilderness, What intelligence is behind the computer?  the intelligence of man, and what intelligence is behind the man? the 'Absolute intelligence'' ,I do not know God I know intelligence behind the each cell and this has been proved by science. How do you believe in this scientific age that ignorance has developed living organism .?

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Please show us that science has proven that there is intelligence behind every cell.

        Is there intelligence behind the design of the guinea worm?
        Is there intelligence behind the design of small pox?

        Seems like these things were designed to kill us humans specifically. The laws of nature are not put in place by any intelligence.

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Rad Man, Science has provided a system of information,instructions and translation within cell  working under only four alphabet letters forming 64 different letters and transmitting message for building the whole future structure and function of the organism ,there is not any other chemical reaction working in this informative way,therefore,it is not possible without an intelligence.Mutation is also result of the errors in this informative system leading towards diseases and biological defects,

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have just proven to you, giving irrefutable evidence exactly the same as you provide, that a computer created the universe.  So, a computer is behind the intelligence of computers.  At the same time, computers are behind the intelligence of man, again using the exact same logic you did.  I'm guessing here, but it may have been Eniac's mommy, hanging around for 14 billion years to turn her child over to lesser beings for improvement.

        If science has proven the intelligence you know behind each cell, please provide information where science shows such information.  Not, mind you, your personal opinion that Allah did it, but science research, tests and peer reviews showing such intelligence.

        How do you believe in this day and age in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient creature from another universe that cares anything at all about the insignificant speck called "sibtain"?  How can you possibly make up such stories or be that egocentric?

        1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          wilderness, It is not story,it is science that you believe more than me, I do not know Omnipotent,Omniscient at this time and it is not relevant with my argument, I am describing what science has stated as  the ''code'' '',set of rules'', information that how cell will grow and what will it make,what diseases will be possible,it is'' translation'' and ''instruction'' , why do you avoid to believe this ''intelligence''? , you think computer may be created without intelligence ?, a cave man has created computer?,you think this is like a programming of computer, therefore it leads to computer God,no it leads and testifies intelligence behind the universe,genetic code is not possible without intelligence as it is set of information instructions and translation.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            All gods are omnipotent.  Otherwise, they are simply an uncommonly knowledgeable  animal.  If your god is not omnipotent AND omniscient (can't have one without the other) then it is not a god at all.

            You said DNA was intelligence, not a list of instructions from an intelligence.  Or was your logic faulty? 

            You must have a different definition of "intelligence" than I do.  A set of instructions is not intelligent, although it might be "intelligence" in the sense used by military spies.  Or do you think that a computer program is really, really smart - making the computer "intelligent"?

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              wilderness,Do you believe that computer programming is possible to be fed without intelligence ? I am not stating that God is not omnipotent and omniscient, I am saying that this time it is not relevant with my argument,my point of view is that a computer programming in the cell [if you are supposing genetic code like the same] proves the intelligence behind the biological system, further you stated that a list of instructions is not intelligence, you believe that a list of instructions is possible without intelligence?

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Of course a computer can be fed without external intelligence, just as you can.  Build it with a battery and a robotic arm and it can plug itself into the wall socket, getting it's "food" from the waterwheel 500 miles away.  Just like you can pick an apple from the tree outside and eat it.

                But whatever does that have to do with a list of instructions being intelligent?

                Of course a list of instructions (DNA string) is possible without intelligence; we see that all around us.  I don't think even you will claim an amoeba to be intelligent, or a bacteria, yet they both have DNA - DNA from their "parents" who were also not intelligent.  No god involved.

                You're doing the same thing here you've done in every other thread you've participated in; making a claim without backing it up.  In this case that only a god can provide DNA - that existence predisposes a god - but offer no proof.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  wilderness,''Of course a computer can be fed without external intelligence, just as you can.''  In this phrase who is'' you ''? ,you mean a cave man was capable for feeding computer programming ? Intelligence is not required for making and feeding programs ? Is there possibility in future animals may make and feed all programmings of computer without help of intelligence of man? If information and translations and instructions are not intelligence then animals could be capable to do computer programming ?

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I mean sibtain bukhari.  There is no outside intelligence necessary for you to wander outside and find food.  Or even in your own refrigerator. 

                    Computers created the universe, proven to be so, by using your own logic.  To refute that truth you must prove that they did not.  Muttering about animals and cavemen is not proof of anything except that you are failing to do so.

                2. sibtain bukhari profile image63
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  wilderness,No,this is a different case and it is very difficult for you to escape from it , the label of ''nature'' excluding intelligence is impossible to apply in the case of genetic code ,it is not simply biologically process or law of nature as it requires the application of mind as there is element of choice,options,following instructions,this is The  process of translation and understanding the meaning of some chemical writing and working inaccordance with ,further it is not simply matter of some organisms it is concerned with the whole biological structure and life cycle . If no intelligence is involved ,then a system of instructions was not required ,it is work of intelligence and understanding and not a biological or mechanical function .

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Again, you are NOT making a valid argument, you are committing a fallacy. Please read that link to fallacies so you understand why your argument does not work. Repeating yourself over and over does nothing.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  EncephaloiDead, Point out my fallacy ,if you can do it .

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It has already been pointed out to you. You sir, are a very rude person. sad

                  2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have already done that several times and you just keep ignoring it. You probably have not even read the link I provided showing the various fallacies. Discussions and debates go nowhere when all that is provided are fallacies. Repeating yourself over and over is not an argument.

                  3. Don W profile image84
                    Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I too would like someone to point out why this argument is not deemed logically valid, if that is what's being suggested. People may dispute the synthetic truth of the premises (as I have myself) but that doesn't mean the argument is invalid. Stripped down and presented more formally you can see that the logic is perfectly valid, regardless of whether you believe the synthetic truth of the premises: 

                    G equals A
                    A equals B
                    Therefore G equals B
                    All X equal G
                    G equals B
                    Therefore all X equal B

                    Or simpler still:

                    G ≡ A
                    A ≡ B
                    ∴ G ≡ B
                    X ≡ G
                    G ≡ B
                    ∴ X ≡ B

                    An alternative semantic version would be:

                    Dogs are quadrupeds
                    Quadrupeds have four legs
                    Therefore dogs have four legs
                    Beagles are dogs
                    Dogs have four legs
                    Therefore beagles have four legs

                    You could replace dogs and beagles with "dragons" and "Nagas" (type of dragon) and the argument would still be perfectly valid.

                    The perceived truth or falsehood of an argument's premises is no indicator of it's logical validity, and an argument's logical validity is no indicator of the truth or falsehood of it's premises.

        2. sibtain bukhari profile image63
          sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          wilderness, Science has no concern with creator it has concern with the systems and workings of universe and life,it has proved that there is a system of instructions, information and translation in the shape of writings in the chemicals,it is not simply a biological and natural process and workings of chemicals,it is the system of working under the message and information and instructions which are only possible by   intelligence.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If I put hydrogen and oxygen in a bag, followed by a match, I get water and light.  The instructions for all chemical reactions are the laws of nature.

            Same with the chemical we call DNA.  The laws of physics and chemistry dictate what those chemicals will do, not the invisible hand of a god somewhere.

            1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
              sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              wilderness, Here you are taking of simply chemical reaction and trying to prove that the appearance of four chemical words and their optional combination forming 64 different forms and then translating and following these instructions for taking the decisions that  the cell will make what species and what diseases will be in the life cycle and what kind of organs will be developed ,all this process working under the only four chemical terms is simply chemical reaction ?

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, it is a chemical reaction.  What did you think it was - a nuclear reaction like the A bomb, where hydrogen becomes helium?

                It's not - it is a matter of several atoms combining to form a molecule.  No atomic reactions going on.

                1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
                  sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  wilderness,Any chemical reaction involves the arrangement of only four alphabet letters,reading the letters by DNA,translating the same ,making the 64 alphabet letters from these letters and transmitting the message for shaping the organism,and this is universal,only four alphabet letters are doing all that,you may give example of any chemical reaction basing over alphabet letters?

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sure I read that wrong.

    2. sibtain bukhari profile image63
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      wilderness,"All computers operate by computer program"

      "The computer program is intelligence"

      "Therefore all computers are intelligent"[ false]
                                                                                                                                          Therefore,all computers operate by intelligence [the intelligence of man] [correct]

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    The genetic code is not literally a "set of instructions". 

    That is what we call an analogy.

    1. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Analogies are not instructions; analogies are comparisons.

    2. sibtain bukhari profile image63
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      psycheskinner,mbuggieh,Science has provided a system of information,instructions and translation within cell  working under only four alphabet letters forming 64 different letters and transmitting message for building the whole future structure and function of the organism ,there is not any other chemical reaction working in this informative way,therefore,it is not possible without an intelligence.Mutation is also result of the errors in this informative system leading towards diseases and biological defects,

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No.  The cell used a bunch of chemical molecules folded up in different ways.

        Humans assigned letters to some parts of those molecules.  Which says something about humans, but very little about the molecules.

        Any thing that has variation has types you could assign letters to.  That does not mean that anything that has variation is an intelligently designed language.

  6. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Exactly, these are just complicated molecules interacting.

  7. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    The prophet Muhammed married 3 women, who were, at the time of consummation, under the age of 18.

    Muhammed's marriages occurred when he was primarily in his 50s.

    An adult who engages in sexual intercourse with those under the age of 18 is a pedophile.

    Therefore, the prophet Muhammed was a pedophile.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "An adult who engages in sexual intercourse with those under the age of 18 is a pedophile."

      That age is actually quite time and place specific.  In our own country 16 and even younger was considered normal not too long ago; I believe my grandmother was married at 15.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sure, but we are talking about him marrying a 7 year old.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Zelkiiro  DID reference "women", not little prepubescent children.  While I might understand some cultures considering a 15 or 16 year old female as a "woman" none I'm aware of has ever thought that before puberty.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image83
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            In order, the ages of Muhammed's wives when they did the nasty are 26, 40, 9, 19, 28, 28, 37, 20, 16, 34, 35, 13, 20, and 15. The important ones being 9, 16, 13, and 15. And most importantly, 9.

    2. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In 1396, Richard II of England---an adult man, was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France when she was just 8 years old. The marriage was a political alliance and not consummated until she was older.

      According to canon (Church) law: A child was defined as a male or female person under the age of 7 -- for either gender -- and below the age of 14 for males, and 12 for females. Puberty NOT chronological age marked the end of childhood.

      I think you need to understand that marriages---particularly arranged marriages, often occurred when one or both of the partners was very young, but this should not be read as  meaning that the marriages were immediately consummated.

      As such,  your effort to discredit Mohammed by claiming that he was a pedophile does not work.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If my memory serves me correctly he married the girl at 7 years old and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old. One would think someone with his connection with God he would have known better.

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do you have a scholarly source that supports this claim?

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm busy with work, but even according to wikipedia she was 7 when he married her and 9 when they consummated the marriage.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

            "Traditional sources dictate that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,[149][221][222] with the marriage not being consummated until after she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old."

  8. JMcFarland profile image91
    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

    If your argument is just continually repeating circular and unsupported claims, this is going nowhere.  But you're not supplying any such measurable existence.

    God creates universes.
    The universe exists
    .Therefore god exists.

    That is *exactly* the same argument form as:
     Gremlins break machines.
    Broken toasters exist.
    Therefore gremlins exist.

    It's circular. If the gremlin argument seems silly--it's not because it uses gremlins. It's because it fails as a fallacious form. It begs the question. You can't assume the conclusion in the premises--since the conclusion is what is in dispute. Universes do not prove gods. Broken toasters do not prove gremlins. We have neither gods nor gremlins to examine, so we can't verify or validate claims about what effects they cause. Unless we can verify they exist, we can't even reasonably use them as a cause for *any* effect, because things that do not exist cannot cause other things. We must first demonstrate they exist, so that we can then know what we're talking about, and have some informed opinions about what they might cause. Horse--then cart.

    1. sibtain bukhari profile image63
      sibtain bukhariposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      JMcFarland, This is not my argument ,I have stated that on other thread and reasonable persons have acknowledged the same,this time I am taking of scientific evidence of genetic code but I am feeling that you including wildermess,are trying to avoid my questions direct ally and replying not seriously.such as you have no answer how a chemical reaction may work with a system of information,instructions and translations basing over only four chemical  alphabet letters for developing the future personality and structure of the organism? you have no answer for the same ,further how information can never be considered knowledge and intelligence ,are ''information'' are possible without knowledge and intelligence and application of mind ?

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We know exactly how it works, with DNA, RNA and proteins.

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ever see frost form on a sheet of glass? It very quickly develops a complex pattern. Do we suggest that the water becomes intelligent when it turns into frost? Or is the water following a set of instructions set forth by nature?

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The problem is clear:

          People are trying to claim that processes (chemical, electrical, mechanical, or even genetic) are "intelligent" in and of themselves.  As you are making clear, to ascribe intelligence to a process that is dependent on mechanisms and repeats and repeats so long as the mechanisms are in place is patently absurd.

          In a sense, the "instructions" are written into the chemistry of water and written into the mechanics of the freezing of water. But, neither is an "intelligent" process; neither requires any cognition whatsoever.

          Again, as I see so many times on Hubpages, comparisons of apples and oranges. Wrongly defined terms. Misunderstood processes and mechanics.

          The result, in this case, a complete failure to apprehend what intelligence is; how intelligence is created, etc. which, in turn, results in a complete misapplication of the concept of intelligence to inanimate things.

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You are correct that it is absurd to ascribe intelligence to a process.  Let's keep that in mind for a moment...



            Instructions are written?  By whom?  Folks here weren't ascribing intelligence to the process, they were simply saying those instructions being followed by the process are evidence and the product of intelligence.



            The processes and mechanics that can be proven are not the issue.  Extrapolations, assumptions and conjecture presented as fact or "theory" which you give the weight of fact when defending them, are.



            So in summation, you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of, by denying the need for intelligence behind the plans, the rules, the principles which everyone agrees exist.  Saying no intelligence was required mean these inanimate things designed, organized and in effect created themselves.  That is a misapplication of the concept of intelligence to inanimate things and ascribing intelligence to a process.  I am glad we agree that is patently absurd.

            1. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think the problem is language. I am not sure we have a better word to explain what is going on than "instructions", but let me try.

              Perhaps rather than think in terms of "instructions" which may imply some designer or intelligence, we could think in terms of X happens because the conditions for it to happen are present.

              In other words, water freezes when a set of X conditions are met. There are no instructions, but rather, conditions.

              We recognize the consequence of the set of X conditions---freezing.

              No instructions. No designer. No intelligence.

              As for the inanimate coming to be: Random permutations and combinations over time. structural advantages that allow for persistence over time. Evolution. No design, no designer. No creation, no creator. In other words, geological processes (conditions) over billions of years.

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Throughout creation rules exist, and are followed exactly.  When to be gas, when to be solid, when to be liquid.  Incredibly delicate and exact balances, extrapolated out billions of times to create what we see.  I won't belabor the old argument which we won't agree on, but it is beyond reason to me and most, to not see how clear and obvious this is.  Nevertheless, I understand scientism contends the converse view and holds it just as passionately.  I rarely chime in, due to the inherent futility of discussing this topic at this level, but your comments about ascribing intelligence to processes and inanimate objects was impossible for me not to comment on, as I see that as exactly what your side of this issue does.

                1. JMcFarland profile image91
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  All you did in that entire paragraph is use an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity.  That's it.

                  Oh.  And an appeal to popularity.

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What took you so long?  That paragraph was not an argument, it was a very brief and superficial explanation of a perspective, but it looked bare without it's "dismiss me" labels, which you promptly supplied.  Thank you!  wink

 
working